Effectively managing headteacher performance Final report January 2014 Dr David Eddy Spicer, Institute of Education, University of London Dr Megan Crawford, University of Cambridge Prof Peter Earley, Institute of Education, University of London Prof Chris James, University of Bath Dr Sara Bubb Rhoda Furniss Dr Jeff Jones Rebecca Nelson Elizabeth Wood
161
Embed
Effectively managing headteacher performance · practices and the spotlight is currently on them. Both Her Majesty's Chief Inspector (HMCI) (Coughlan, 2013; Ofsted, 2013a) and the
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Effectively managing headteacher performance Final report
January 2014
Dr David Eddy Spicer, Institute of Education, University of London Dr Megan Crawford, University of Cambridge Prof Peter Earley, Institute of Education, University of London Prof Chris James, University of Bath Dr Sara Bubb Rhoda Furniss Dr Jeff Jones Rebecca Nelson Elizabeth Wood
2
Contents
Headteacher performance management reports 6
Executive Summary 7
What were the aims of the project? .............................................................................. 8
Key ideas and challenges arising from the research ..................................................... 9
10 features of effective headteacher performance management ............................. 11
Chapter 1: Introduction, framework and research design 14
Aims and Objectives ................................................................................................... 14
Research Design ........................................................................................................ 15
Framework and definitions ......................................................................................... 15
Phase IIb: Surveys of governing bodies and headteachers ................................... 113
Phase III – Case studies ....................................................................................... 114
Phase IV – Analysis and writing-up ....................................................................... 114
Appendix B.1 Survey of governors 115
Appendix B.2 Survey of Headteachers 136
Appendix C: Case Studies & Vignettes 149
C-1: Table of all case study sites .............................................................................. 149
C-2: Outline of case study ....................................................................................... 150
C-3: Outline of vignettes ........................................................................................... 151
Appendix D: Bibliography of Sources 152
6
Headteacher performance management reports
This document is one of a set of reports about the study of the effective management
of headteacher performance in schools in England.
This report is the full report, including the executive summary; details about the
framework and design of the study; a review of the international literature on
performance management of senior leaders in education and related sectors;
analysis of empirical data collected for the study; discussion of significant issues
arising from the analysis; and a summary of main findings and implications drawing
on the analysis and review of literature.
We recommend that you read all the reports to understand the research fully. These
documents are available on from gov.uk. The complete set of reports includes the
following:
Research brief
A summary of key areas for consideration by governors and those
directly involved in the process of headteacher performance
management.
Full report
The full report, including the executive summary; details about the
framework and design of the study; a review of the international
literature on performance management of senior leaders in education
and related sectors; analysis of empirical data collected for the study;
discussion of significant issues arising from the analysis; and a
summary of main findings and implications drawing on the analysis
and review of literature.
Case Studies (Annexe A)
Ten case studies drawn from the research to illustrate approaches to
headteacher performance management in a variety of schools and
school groups around England.
Vignettes (Annexe B)
Twelve examples of important research themes contextualised in
specific school settings.
7
Executive Summary
Good governing is at the heart of effective headteacher performance management.
From the research detailed in this report, there is a strong case for arguing that the
way headteacher performance management is carried out is a leitmotif for governing
body effectiveness. Effective headteacher performance management indicates
effective governing; the two are complementary. Structural changes in England’s
system of schooling have strengthened the need for governing bodies to put into
place effective approaches to headteacher performance management for both
external accountability purposes and as an important tool in improving internal
accountability within schools. At the same time, these structural changes have added
to stress and uncertainty, contributing to the burden of oversight for both governing
bodies and headteachers.
Thus, governing bodies are at the sharp end of school leadership and management
practices and the spotlight is currently on them. Both Her Majesty's Chief Inspector
(HMCI) (Coughlan, 2013; Ofsted, 2013a) and the Academies Commission (2013)
have recently challenged governors to ‘up their game’. Valuable resources exist to
help schools meet this challenge. However, governors need support to find and
make use of these resources, as well as identifying those most relevant for their
particular settings. What is clear from the literature and research is that when it
comes to performance management (PM), one size does not fit all, but there are
steps that schools can take to improve and refine their processes for their own
needs, as well as for meeting external demands.
A nine month research project into the effective management of headteacher
performance in maintained schools and academies was commissioned by the
Department for Education (DfE), and carried out by the Institute of Education (IOE),
University of London, the University of Bath and the University of Cambridge. The
project was completed in September 2013. This executive summary gives an
overview of the project and its key findings.
The chapters in the report are as follows:
Chapter 1 presents a framework and definitions foundational to our study.
Chapter 2 reviews the significant ideas and debates in the literature on performance
management.
Chapter 3 describes important aspects of headteacher performance management
that have emerged from an analysis of the research data.
Chapter 4 considers significant issues emerging from the data.
8
Chapter 5 of the report summarises the main findings and draws conclusions.
What were the aims of the project?
In summary, the project aimed to:
Identify ideas, approaches and key debates around effective performance
management practices for senior managers/leaders in educational and other
settings.
Assess the relevance to school governing bodies of the characteristics of
effective senior manager/leader performance management and their effective
management.
Identify specific challenges to the implementation of effective headteacher
performance management.
Highlight ways of overcoming barriers to putting in place and sustaining
effective headteacher performance management and management of
headteacher underperformance.
Render vivid portraits of implementation of effective practice in a range of
school settings selected to highlight key issues in effective headteacher
performance management.
Discuss the implications of the findings for chairs, headteachers and
governing bodies in designing, putting into place and sustaining effective
headteacher performance management.
In order to address these questions, a research design was developed with four
overlapping phases.
Phase 1 - An initial scoping exercise mapped the characteristics of effective
PM of senior leaders, identified acknowledged barriers to successful
implementation, and drew out core lessons for leadership and management
through a synthesis of 56 publicly-available works selected from an initial pool
of 116 drawn from academic and non-academic sources.
Phase 2 - The emerging findings around effective practices were used to
explore current actual practice and barriers to implementation through: a) 13
face-to-face and telephone interviews with experts, and b) 2 national online
surveys of chairs of governing bodies and/or governors with responsibility for
headteacher performance management (April 2013, n=1,069); and
headteachers (July 2013, n=147).
9
Phase 3 - Based on initial analyses of survey and interview data and the
literature, we developed a sampling frame for identifying 20 case studies of
schools and school groups around the country. The research included cross-
case comparison of all 20, along with the development of 10 stand-alone case
studies and 12 vignettes of key themes identified in the case study data.
Phase 4 - The findings from each of the preceding phases were used to
produce the final report.
Four major headings adapted from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development’s (OECD) ‘Conceptual framework for school leadership appraisal’
(OECD, 2013) are used to categorise significant issues and organise the empirical
data. They are:
Governance environment
Procedures
Use of outcomes from performance management procedures
Development of organisational capacity for effective performance
management.
Key ideas and challenges arising from the research
The performance management of senior leaders in education has a growing body of
knowledge, mostly practical and some theoretical, associated with its practices. A
synthesis of evidence from the literature and interviews confirm the lack of, and need
for, systematic guidance and support around effective headteacher performance
management1.
Interviewees highlighted how headteacher performance management in schools is
challenged by:
1 The Education (School Teachers’ Appraisal) (England) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/115) set out the
legal framework for the appraisal of teachers and headteachers and apply to all maintained schools, including maintained special schools, and to local authorities in respect of unattached teachers. The regulations do not apply in academies, free schools, other independent schools, or sixth-form colleges although they are free to use them if they wish. The Education Regulations (2012) specify that headteachers are assessed against the Teachers’ Standards (2011) as well as objectives set by the Governing Body.
10
the growing responsibilities of governing bodies and their status as non-
executive boards
the increasing diversity of structures of governance (e.g. multi-academy
trusts)
the scarcity of resources for, and guidance around, developing innovative
solutions.
Our case studies showed that schools identified as following good practice were
conducting headteacher performance appraisal in a similar way and were making
use of existing guidance. Many of our case study schools were integrating the
processes of headteacher appraisal into broader processes of managing the
headteacher and the school through the astute use of performance information. We
consider this more holistic approach and integrated use of performance information
to be a hallmark of performance management, which encompasses robust
performance appraisal. The distinction between appraisal of the headteacher and a
more encompassing application of headteacher performance management is a
matter of emphasis and scope, the elements of which are highly contingent on
context. One crucial distinction is that effective headteacher performance
management can only occur when there exist explicit practices and shared
understandings around the use of performance information for the overall
management of the school. In general, we found that rigorous and effective
headteacher performance management is undertaken by governors with sufficient
expertise, who view the process as important, and see performance management as
a key part of the governing of the school. The mix of expertise and experience
available on the governing body varied depending on the school’s context and the
conditions of the school. Expertise required on the governing body comes from
governors’ work in other sectors and in other formal roles. Sustaining and developing
the expertise required was a concern of several governing bodies, who had
implemented ways to integrate new members into the process.
Governing bodies typically benefit substantially from the participation of an external
adviser (EA) or consultant with appropriate expertise and knowledge of the school.
The external advisor as currently practiced combines several roles, helping to
sharpen the process as well as clarifying the links between internal and external
accountability, headteacher development and governing. External advisors are
important to the process, often acting as a broker, and the vast majority of schools
use them. However, they must be seen to ‘add value’ to warrant their cost.
The availability of appropriately qualified external advisors and enabling ready
access to them may be a concern in the future. However, increasing the provision
and quality of external advisors is only one piece of the comprehensive solution
11
required to develop governing body capacity to implement robust headteacher
performance management.
Governors identified a wide range of training needs that pointed towards the most
challenging pinch points in the process. The most common topics mentioned by
governors for training and/or development that would be of greatest value to them in
improving the quality of the headteacher performance management process related
to:
the technical and legal formalities of headteacher appraisal
understanding data
issues around pay and performance
managing relations with the head
setting and monitoring objectives
benchmarking
external advice.
10 features of effective headteacher performance management
In summary, we found effective headteacher performance management to be
characterised by 10 features.
Effective headteacher performance management is integrated with the school development plan.
Coherent organisational development and the cultivation of internal accountability
for development across the school are important foundations of effective
headteacher performance management.
Effective headteacher performance management has a secure annual cycle of objective-setting and review together with interim monitoring.
The cycle follows clear procedures and is tailored to the needs of the school.
Objective setting and the monitoring of objectives make use of appropriate
sources of information. Interim monitoring consists not only of monitoring
progress against school performance objectives but provides a moment to take
stock of the individual performance of the headteacher on the full range of her or
his objectives.
The external advisor can play an important role in mediating between individual
needs of the headteacher and organisational goals, as well as working to help the
governing body develop its capacity to carry out effective performance
management.
12
Effective headteacher performance management is underpinned by sound relationships, characterised by openness, trust and integrity, among all those involved.
Headteacher performance management hinges on mutual respect, trust, candour
and a willingness to challenge and to be challenged. Of particular importance are
the relationships among the headteacher, the external adviser and the chair of
governors.
Effective headteacher performance management involves the setting of meaningful and challenging but achievable objectives for the headteacher.
The breadth and precision of the headteacher’s objectives, the quality of
performance information and productive engagement of stakeholders reflect the
experience, maturity and quality of overall management processes within the
school. Governors need to pay close attention to the ways that personal and
professional goals mesh with organisational needs.
Effective headteacher performance management strikes an appropriate balance among internal and external accountability, development and reward.
External accountability and visibly demonstrating progress against objectives
serve as the overarching motivation for setting ambitious objectives and for
constructive uses of performance information throughout the organisation.
There is recognition of the need for ‘reciprocal accountability’, challenge
accompanied with appropriate support.
Providing recommendations for performance-related pay is an important outcome
of the process that is among the most challenging, even for governing bodies and
headteachers with well-developed performance management processes. The
challenge will increase as performance-related pay becomes the norm
throughout schools and across the educational system.
Effective headteacher performance management makes use of a wide variety of data from a range of sources to inform and underpin decision-making.
Data is regularly used as part of the ongoing monitoring of organisational
performance. The use of clear, consistent and timely data of a range of kinds is
an important input into the headteacher performance management process.
Typically the external advisor ensures that the headteacher performance
management process is underpinned by sound data and appropriate data use.
Performance or attainment data are most prevalent in providing evidence of
achievement. Condensed data displays, such as the ‘data dashboards’ produced
by Ofsted, are not yet widely adopted and offer governing bodies ready access to
a range of indicators that might be useful in monitoring school performance and
13
raising questions about and/or praising individual performance. Governing bodies
may need to consider alternative forms of evidence, such as 360-degree
feedback, as a means of making use of performance information that is most
appropriate to the needs of their headteacher and school.
Effective headteacher performance management is evaluated and adapted over time to meet evolving requirements of individual circumstances and shifting organisational needs within a dynamic context of governance.
Effective headteacher performance management evolves with the needs of the
headteacher and the school. This entails regular reflection on how objectives, the
process and its outcomes are meeting the needs of the individual headteacher
and the school.
Effective headteacher performance management is appropriate for the stage of development of the school and the headteacher.
The link between headteacher performance management and holistic
approaches to performance management throughout the organisation became
clear when examining the connections between performance management and
other management processes in the school. The external advisor has an
important role to play in making these connections explicit.
Effective headteacher performance management is viewed as part of an on-going and wider process of working with the headteacher and all members of staff to ensure high levels of performance.
Managing the progress of the school as an organisation and managing the
headteacher are ongoing and intertwined processes for intelligent internal
accountability
Effective headteacher performance management is integral to the development of overall governing body capacity to meet the needs of the school.
Our case studies make clear that effective headteacher performance
management is an attribute of highly-effective governing bodies. A focus on
developing the governing body’s capacity for effective performance management
of the headteacher can serve as a fulcrum for improving the governing body’s
overall efficacy.
Effective oversight of the headteacher performance management process is one of
the most important roles played by the governing body in the overall governance of
the school. The challenge is to ensure that all school governing bodies are in a
position to play that part.
14
Chapter 1: Introduction, framework and research
design
Headteacher performance management is among the most important and least
understood aspects of the role of a school governing body. Currently, evidence
about the diverse ways governing bodies in the different types of school in England
carry out headteacher performance management is lacking. Moreover, little is known
about the ways in which the performance management of the headteacher shapes
overall school performance, including the work of teachers and student learning and
development, or how this relates to performance management in the school as a
whole. Such knowledge is especially crucial given the evolving structure of the
educational system and the shifting relationship between the state and schools in
England and elsewhere. To address this gap in knowledge, the London Centre for
Leadership in Learning at the Institute of Education (IOE), University of London; the
University of Bath; and the University of Cambridge were commissioned by the
Department for Education (DfE) to undertake research into the effective
management of headteacher performance.
Aims and Objectives
The nine-month project commenced in December 2012 and was designed to:
1. identify and characterise ideas, approaches and key debates around effective
performance management (PM) practices for senior managers/leaders in
educational and other settings.
2. assess the relevance to school contexts and the governing body of the
characteristics of effective senior manager/leader performance management
and the effective management of senior managers/leader underperformance.
3. identify specific challenges to the implementation of headteacher performance
management and management of headteacher underperformance.
4. highlight managerial responses for overcoming barriers to putting in place and
sustaining effective headteacher performance management and management
of headteacher underperformance.
5. render vivid portraits of implementation of effective practice in a range of
school settings selected to highlight key issues in leadership and
management related to effective headteacher performance management and
the management of headteacher underperformance by governing bodies.
6. elaborate the implications of objectives 1-4 for the leadership development for
chairs, governing bodies and headteachers involved in designing, putting into
15
place and sustaining effective headteacher performance management and the
management of headteacher underperformance.
Research Design
The research design encompasses four overlapping phases. A detailed discussion of
research design and methods appears in Appendix A. The phases are as follows.
Phase 1 - An initial scoping exercise mapped the characteristics of effective
PM of senior leaders, identified acknowledged barriers to successful
implementation, and drew out core lessons for leadership and management
through a synthesis of 56 publicly-available works selected from an initial pool
of 116 drawn from academic and non-academic sources.
Phase 2 - The emerging findings around effective practices were used to
explore current actual practice and barriers to implementation through: a) 13
face-to-face and telephone interviews, and b) 2 national online surveys of
chairs of governing bodies and/or governors with responsibility for managing
the performance of the headteacher (April 2013, n=1,069) and headteachers
(July 2013, n=147).
Phase 3 - Based on initial analyses of surveys, interviews and the literature,
we developed a sampling frame for identifying 20 case studies of schools and
school groups around the country. The study includes cross-case comparison
of all 20, along with in-depth analysis drawing upon 10 stand-alone case
studies and 12 vignettes of key themes identified in the case study data.
Phase 4 - The findings from each of the preceding phases were used to
produce the final report.
Framework and definitions
Performance management
The term performance management is used to describe the general process by
which an employee and her/his line manager/boss evaluate the performance of the
employee and negotiate objectives as well as developmental goals for a specific time
period. A classic definition is one by Castetter (1976, p. 22):
assessments by a supervisor of a subordinate to draw conclusions about the
performance of the subordinate to improve performance and to make
decisions about terms of employment.
16
In the literature, performance management is commonly viewed as one of a number
of important management processes that include financial, human resource and
advisor support was invaluable but that it depended on the particular external advisor
knowing the school well and being able, in the view of the headteacher, to ask
probing questions based on analysis of the full range of information provided.
Although external advisor continuity was deemed important, some governing bodies
deliberately replaced the external advisor every two years. At P18, a primary
academy, which was graded outstanding by Ofsted, the external advisor is changed
regularly to bring independence to the process.11 In one instance (S15), the external
advisor was drawn from another sector, the NHS.12 Using an external advisor with
that background was justified on the basis that the governing body appraised the
performance of the whole leadership team and this particular external advisor had
‘team appraisal’ experience.
Key messages
The three crucial relationships in effective headteacher performance management
are those of the headteacher, the external advisor and the governing body,
particularly the chair. Effective headteacher performance management hinges on
mutual respect, trust, candour and a willingness to challenge and to be challenged.
External advisors are important to the process and the vast majority of schools use
them but they must be seen to ‘add value’ to the process to warrant their cost. The
desired characteristics deemed to add value (eg familiarity with school, knowledge of
performance management as process, ability to serve as coach/mentor to
headteacher, etc.) are highly dependent on what a particular school might need at a
particular moment in time.
4. Process
The panel
In all the cases that were not national MATs, an appraisal panel appointed by the
governing body annually reviewed the headteacher’s performance. The typical panel
included three members - the chair of the full governing body, the chair of the
committee that oversees staffing and/or finance; and one other governor who has
particular expertise in performance management and/or education. Data from the
governors’ survey shows that the vast majority (96%) appointed a panel to oversee
the process and that two-thirds of the panels consisted of three governors.
11 See Case Study P18: Maintaining very high performance from a long-standing and effective
headteacher. 12
Case Study S15: A very large, ‘outstanding’, 11- 19 school in the South-East where the senior team is appraised as a whole by governors.
62
Exactly one-quarter reported that there were only two governors on the committee.
The vast majority (92%) reported that some members of the review panel or
committee had experience in appraising staff from their current or previous working
lives. Most respondents to the governing body questionnaire reported a similar
composition, including the presence of the chair.
However, the chair’s role on the review panel was debated by some, with a few
schools explicitly excluding the chair (P4) and others debating the practice (S10).
The choice of the third member of the panel also varied, with some schools carefully
selecting a governing body member with appropriate expertise (At17). In one larger
than average primary school (P18), two governors comprise the panel and carry out
headteacher performance management. One will have done it the year before and
the other must be new and have done recent governor training in headteacher
performance management. The pairings change every year to keep the process
dynamic. Other governors have successfully completed the training and so can step
into the breach if necessary. This cycle of bi-annual rotation in panel membership
cultivates broader representation and the development of capacity. In one instance
of a larger than average panel (S10), the review group included four members, the
chair and the chairs of each of the governing body committees who oversaw the
work of the head (i.e., staffing, finance, and teaching and learning).13
In some instances, this review is wider in scope than the headteacher alone and
includes other senior staff. Our sample of cases included one instance of a co-
headship (S14) reviewed together and three instances in which performance of the
senior leadership team (SLT) was reviewed simultaneously by the same panel,
either as a composite team with the headteacher (S15), or in processes of serial or
sequential review, following directly on from the review of the headteacher (At17,
S10).14
In the case studies, all review panels or committees, except for one school (S11) and
one national multi-academy trust (MAT-A), worked closely with the external advisor
or a trust appointee in a similar role. As noted earlier, the typical rhythm of interaction
leading up to and beyond the formal annual review involves:
the panel and sometimes the full governing body discussing points to raise
a meeting between the external advisor and headteacher
13 See Case Study S10: A secondary school in challenging circumstances and under pressure to
improve uses headteacher performance management to focus its governing body on pressing priorities. 14
See ibid; Case Study S15: A very large, ‘outstanding’, 11- 19 school in the South-East where the senior team is appraised as a whole by governors.
63
a meeting of the external advisor, headteacher and governor panel, followed
by
a meeting of the headteacher and governor panel
a write up by the external advisor.
Performance management continues throughout the year with ongoing monitoring.
This occurs as part of:
regular interaction between the headteacher and chair of governors
termly committee meetings of the governing body that have oversight of
aspects of the work of the school that relates to the headteacher’s objectives
a formal mid-year review meeting of the appraisal panel and headteacher
specifically focusing on checking in about progress against the headteacher’s
objectives.
At this mid-year review, objectives may be recalibrated or revised to take into
consideration the changing needs of the school and the headteacher.
One of the most frequently mentioned challenges facing the review panel was
logistical - scheduling the sequence of meetings necessary for the formal review.
Many of the case study school chairs were no longer in full-time employment and
could, in some instances, be more flexible, but other panel members tended to be
very busy professionals. In some instances, difficulties scheduling meetings caused
substantial frustration with the process (S10) or significant delays (S14). In several
instances, both headteachers and governors were aware of the need to carry out
interim meetings explicitly focused on headteacher performance management but
had found that the logistical challenges of scheduling frequently made this
impossible. Similar issues were identified in the surveys when asked about the
challenges they faced.
Establishing objectives
Across the data set, the objectives established typically focussed on academic or
learning standards, leading and managing, and personal and professional
development. Establishing objectives - or setting targets as respondents typically
referred to it - was understandably a significant moment in the headteacher
performance management process.15 Setting objectives was typically a ‘group
process’ involving the panel of governors, the external advisor and the headteacher;
15 See Vignette F: Establishing objectives.
64
although there were exceptions, for example in national MATs, in which objectives
were set by the HT’s line manager, the director of education, using comparative data
from schools across the trust.
Typically, respondents found setting of objectives difficult for a range of reasons:
were they realistic and directly under the headteacher’s control? How would the
governors know that the objective had been achieved? And of course, what should
they focus on? Many interviewees, such as one respondent at case study school
P18 specifically referred to the SMART acronym (Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Relevant and Time-related) as being helpful. School P18 also used success criteria
as did other schools.16 It was clear that other respondents had these ideas – SMART
objectives and success criteria - in mind when they were setting objectives. So, at P9
one of the respondents referred to the target set being ‘clear, measurable, feasible’.
One interviewee in case study school P9 referred to the objectives set as hard
(easily measurable (pupil/school) performance objectives, and soft such as creating
a collegial atmosphere in the staffroom which are ‘perhaps more important but more
difficult to measure’.
The set of objectives varied according to the stage of development of both the school
and the headteacher. At a number of schools, respondents recognised that the
objectives had changed over time. For example, at P9, early in the new
headteacher’s time at the school, the objectives were related to the national
standards for headteachers. Now the headteacher has been in post a number of
years, objectives were focussed more on school development.
The number of objectives varied but was typically between three and six. In some
instances, for example S10, the panel, the external advisor and the headteacher
began with a long-list of possible objectives which was then slimmed down to a more
suitable number. Typically the objectives would have a one-year time scale. In some
instances the objectives had a longer time horizon. At P18, for example, the
governors were starting to use a three-yearly cycle.17
As noted above, in three of the cases, the headteacher performance management
process focussed on the school leadership team not just the headteacher. So, S15
had a system of leadership team performance management, which included the
setting of objectives and a review process. At S11, where they have a large SLT, the
governors’ performance management panel sets and reviews the objectives of the
16 See Case Study P18: Maintaining very high performance form a long-standing and effective
headteacher. 17
ibid.
65
whole group. At At17, an all-through school, the principal’s objectives were
established first and then the objectives for the two phase headteachers were set.18
From the various case studies, it was clear that establishing a link with the school’s
performance objectives, usually part of the school development plan (SDP), was
important as we discuss in section 5 below. However, in some instances the school’s
performance objectives (for example to improve pupil attainment) appeared to be the
same as the headteacher’s performance management objectives. This overlap may
be out of necessity, given the state of development of the school, but the potential
lack of specificity and precision in what the headteacher might undertake does draw
attention to the difficulties of discerning objectives that are individualised, appropriate
and measurable.
In many settings, the external advisor played a crucial role in setting objectives. At
the most basic level, the external advisor introduced the use of pro-formas for
documenting and clarifying objectives. Often, these were or had been developed by
the local authority for use in all schools in an area (eg Sp16). But a wider external
advisor \mediational role was also very important for the prioritisation and calibration
of organisational goals with individual objectives. The external advisor served as a
fulcrum in many instances, helping the headteacher and the governing body to find
the right balance of challenge and support, precision and flexibility in setting
objectives. Respondents to our survey of governing body members mentioned
external advisors and the relevant committee of the governing body as having the
most significant role in objective setting.
As we noted in the earlier section on the external advisor role, we also received
comments about the adviser serving as a barrier to governing body involvement with
objective setting. In the headteacher questionnaire survey over one-half reported
that they themselves were most involved in the setting of their own objectives, and
several comments attested to headteachers’ frustrations with the inability of their
governing bodies to understand how to establish appropriate objectives.
In two instances (S10 and At17), ‘aggressive targets’ were used by the headteacher
and principal to serve as demonstrable evidence of external accountability - the need
for swift improvements and the leaders’ commitment to that task.19 In a new all-
through school, the launch of which entailed the closure of three struggling schools,
the principal noted that they knew initial objectives had to be uncompromising to
19
See Vignette F: Setting objectives.
66
convince parents and the local authority that the new school was a worthy
replacement for the closures and the anxiety that entailed for parents.
The local authority left me in no doubt that I had to produce results here. [My
objectives are] not airy-fairy, esoteric things. They are the things that I need to
do to move this organisation forward. Sort of the bread and butter stuff.
We noted many instances of the use of objectives for addressing difficult
circumstances within the school due to issues such as low attainment, lagging pupil
progress, unsatisfactory teaching, and the need to strengthen middle leadership.
What we did not find were many carefully-crafted instances of using objectives to
promote personal development or clear articulation of individualised learning aims
(see Seijts and Latham, 2005). MAT-B stands out as acknowledging the distinction
between accountability and development in its procedures, including objective
setting, but such close attention to personal development and even individualised
learning goals for professional development is atypical in our case study data.
Curiously, governing body survey responses indicate a wide range of types of
objectives in use. However, headteacher respondents were much more apt to note
an overemphasis on ‘hard’ objectives that emphasised accountability for improved
organisational performance.
Use of performance information within the headteacher performance
management process
The use of data of a range of kinds was important in the headteacher performance
management process. So for example, headteacher performance management at
case study school At17 made extensive use of data and at P20 a wide range of
information was used, including feedback from a ‘monitoring day’ when several
governors visit the school to build a snapshot view of how the school is doing.
Case study school S5, mentioned in section B.1 above, is typical in its use of a wide
range of information, including:
statistical data from RAISEonline and the Fisher Family Trust
hard data from the school development plan
progress of students
KS2 outcomes raw scores, 8 best scores for 16 +
A-level data, including leavers destinations
However, the use of clear data syntheses nationally is patchy. The chair of
governor’s survey found only 56% of respondents stating that the governing body
regularly uses a means of putting together high-level school performance information
at a glance, such as data dashboards.
67
Data were also used as part of the ongoing monitoring of performance (see below),
for example at P4 and at S5 where data was used to establish progress against
objectives.20 In some instances, the governors had to change their approach to
become more data aware and to make more use of data in their headteacher
performance management. Typically the EA had an important role in ensuring that
the headteacher performance management process was underpinned by sound data
and appropriate data use.
Engaging stakeholders
A number of schools, for example P20 mentioned above, as well as S8, S13, and
S15, sought out feedback about the headteacher’s performance from a variety of
stakeholders. This was commonly referred to as ‘360 degree feedback’. To varying
degrees many schools collected feedback from parents, pupils and staff; however
only rarely (eg S3) was this conducted with the level of rigour implied by the term
‘360 degree’.21
At S3, evidence was collected relatively informally through conversations with the
SLT, key governors and staff and students. It was part of a larger development plan
to move the school forward. The governing body of S5 explicitly sought to engage a
wide range of stakeholders in the headteacher performance management process.
The headteacher wanted that approach. She was appointed internally and was used
to getting honest feedback from the previous headteacher, which she valued. She
viewed the process as an opportunity to get a view from all stakeholders of her
performance.
Ongoing monitoring
Data from the governors’ survey showed that monitoring of progress towards
meeting objectives was considered as part of the wider processes of overseeing the
performance of the organisation as a whole. Many schools had systems of
monitoring and review in place. The survey of governors found over 80% of chairs
reporting discussions about their headteacher’s objectives taking place outside of the
formal process with 30% of these stating this occurred ‘at least once a month’.
Only rarely was a formal mid-year review convened to focus specifically on the
headteacher with panel members. Headteacher performance management at case
20 See Case Studies P4: An ‘outstanding’ primary school in the North West of England illustrates the
impact of a mature, efficiently organised and effectively managed headteacher performance management process and S5: Developing 360 degree headteacher performance management in a north-eastern comprehensive school. 21
See Vignette A: Stakeholder engagement and headteacher performance management.
68
study school S20 involved a formal mid-year review and other monitoring, including a
formal ‘monitoring day’ which entailed visits to the school by the headteacher
performance management panel. The literature and expert interviews made clear
that this was an important feature of effective performance management.
In all case studies, both headteachers and chairs reported ongoing, informal
discussions on matters about objectives related to pupil attainment and progress, as
well as learning and teaching objectives as these were tied to the school
development plan. In most cases, as noted above, external advisors also performed
a school improvement partner-like function, and their visits provided additional
opportunities for informal discussions about progress against objectives.
At S10, the chair had restructured the governing body so that specific committees
would ‘own’ particular goals identified in the school development plan.22 The explicit
links may not have been as close in other schools, but in most cases the
headteacher reported termly to the full governing body or specific committees in
ways that allowed both the headteacher and governing body to assess progress
against objectives.
At P6 and P8 there was extensive monitoring, which was undertaken as part of the
whole school monitoring. Headteacher performance management at P12 involved a
series of milestone meetings, which reviewed progress according to various points in
the year that had been previously set. In S15 the headteacher and governors
emphasised strongly that the formal appraisal process took place against a
background of ongoing monitoring of the school’s work, particularly through frequent
informal discussion, the well-planned work of its committees, and visits to
departments, with a member of the SLT. There was no explicit ongoing monitoring at
P9, 17 or S13.
Individual developmental objectives, professional as well as personal, were less
frequently mentioned as a focus of ongoing monitoring but the well-being of heads
and the ensuring of an appropriate work-life balance were frequently on the agenda
if not formally monitored. The survey of headteachers, for example, found about one-
quarter disagreeing with the statement that ‘the results from my appraisal are used to
further my professional development’. However, just over one-half of headteacher
respondents noted that their ‘professional development and growth’ were important
objectives for their most recent appraisal.
22 See Case Study S10 A secondary school in challenging circumstances and under pressure to
improve uses headteacher performance management to focus its governing body on pressing priorities.
69
Development of headteacher performance management procedures
As we reported earlier, there was ample evidence that schools were sharpening and
focusing documentation and procedures. But relatively few schools had radically
altered the headteacher performance management process over time. For example,
at S5, S5, P9 and S11 the process had been ‘streamlined’ which typically meant
having better and less paperwork. Schools had changed the headteacher
performance management process in other ways to enhance its effectiveness and to
ensure it was fit for purpose and met the requirements. There was also evidence,
from the S11 case, where the school had sharpened the headteacher performance
management process following conversion to academy status. In some instances,
changes to the process were related to structural changes (S10, S03), and to enable
the process to work better, as at S5 and P9.
Key messages
Managing the progress of the school as an organisation and managing the
headteacher are ongoing and intertwined processes for intelligent internal
accountability. The breadth and precision of the headteacher’s objectives, the quality
of performance information and productive engagement of stakeholders reflected the
experience, maturity and quality of overall management processes within the school.
For all schools, external accountability and visibly demonstrating progress against
objectives served as the overarching motivation for setting ambitious and
‘aggressive’ targets and the uses of performance information. The MATs along with
a small number of schools, typically those confident of their external standing,
elaborated precise and individualised objectives that recognised a need for
‘reciprocal accountability’, challenge accompanied with appropriate support. Setting
milestones for review of the objectives is also important.
Most schools in our study did not have an established schedule of mid-year review,
explicitly focused on headteacher performance management. However, all schools
noted some form of ongoing monitoring around objectives for school development
that happened throughout the year. In contrast, most schools did not make robust
use of objectives for personal development in connection with professional and
organisational development. The surveys revealed a disparity between headteachers
and governing body members around the use of objectives for personal development
in connection with professional and organisational development. The schools or
groups of schools with the most developed forms of performance management, such
as MAT-B, S11 and S03, were far more apt to pay close attention to the
headteachers’ personal objectives. The lack of focus on personal development in
relation to organisational development is a major reason why the literature advocates
for setting aside time for interim review. This area is important for governing bodies
to develop in order to reinforce trust and good relationships.
70
5. Organisational connections
Integration with school development plan
Integration of headteacher performance management across the organisation is
important. The integration of the headteacher performance management process
with the school development plan (SDP) was evident in many of the cases, for
example at S3, S5 and S12. Over 80% of heads in the survey noted that priorities in
the SDP were important in the setting of their objectives. At school At17, the
integration of all planning objectives was very apparent. There were coherent
connections across whole school objectives, into the principal’s objectives, which
were parsed into the objectives of each of the two phase headteachers, primary and
secondary, and from there into the objectives of subject and year leaders and the
teachers and teaching assistants on their team. All performance objectives were
meant to relate ‘up and down and down and up’, in the words of one respondent,
with clearly inter-related documentation. Such a ‘cascade process’ was evident at
other schools, although not as explicitly articulated as in At17 and P20.23
At a special, all-through school (Sp16) the chair and headteacher were working
towards establishing and integrating objectives for all staff, including those taking
care of the estate and food services staff, because of their importance in working
with pupils at this school.24
Involvement of external advisor
The external advisor can play an important mediational role in ensuring the
coherence not only of objectives but also of the wider organisational processes that
connect objective setting with the SDP, and help the governing body understand
what information to pay most attention to in its monitoring efforts. In schools or
school groups that emphasised personal development, the external advisor also
played a crucial role in calibrating the headteacher’s personal and professional
objectives to the particular needs of the school.
Key messages
The link between performance review/appraisal and holistic approaches to
performance management throughout the organisation become clear when
examining the organisational connections between appraisal and other management
23 See Vignette H: Cascade process; and Vignette L: Using performance management for whole
school development. 24
See Vignette J: Developing governing body capacity.
71
processes in the school. The importance of these connections highlights, once
again, the crucial mediating and supporting role of the external advisor.
C. Use of outcomes
Performance-related pay
The link between the outcomes of performance review and headteacher pay
increments could be reduced to a simple formula, as expressed by those in school
P9: ‘If objectives have been met, one increment. If performance has been
exceptional two increments’. However, arriving at a recommendation around pay
was not straightforward, and in all of our cases, the process involved substantial
discernment, sometimes directly involving discussion with the headteacher (S9) and
other times not.
In terms of how pay recommendations were made, the steps along the way for P18
were typical for larger schools, involving the headteacher performance management
committee handing over its evaluation of performance to a separate finance
committee, which would then put forward a recommendation to the full governing
body as the case study field notes indicate:
The HTPM committee makes a recommendation to the governing body about
whether they think the HT’s performance merits a pay increase. The Finance
and Staffing committee make the decision about whether she will get a pay
increase and if so, how much.
However, for most schools, the survey of chairs of governors found that 86% of
committees also made decisions about pay with just under one-third of these
performing this as a separate part of the review process. Two-thirds of governing
bodies with separate processes regarding awarding pay reported that some
members of the appraisal group are involved in decisions about pay, but the pay
process involves other governors as well.
Thus, even when the process was separate the membership of the committees
might substantially overlap, presumably because these were the members of the
governing body who had substantive expertise in related areas. In some schools,
most evidently smaller schools such as P12, there was little capacity for separate
committees and the review committee’s evaluation included a recommendation
around pay.
72
The link of performance with pay was controversial. Several case study chair
interviewees mentioned the difficulty of retaining a highly competent headteacher at
a time when they could be recruited - head-hunted - by others. In a competitive
market for high quality headteachers, especially from academies, there are
implications for remuneration. Such pressures compel governing bodies to focus on
the quality – and sophistication – of headteacher performance management
processes in retaining and recruiting headteachers. Some governing bodies were
happy to award their headteachers what might appear generous pay awards,
especially at a time when teacher salaries are fairly static, in an attempt to retain
their services. With the diminution of the LA role, governors did not have access to
benchmarking data, which could have implications for pay, especially in regards to
gender.
A number of chairs noted that the connection was problematic. As one chair
remarked:
PRP values the wrong things: money rather than the kids. But people want
parity and if paying people more can take financial worries away, that’s good.
But money is a great de-motivator, a distraction. The real reward is making a
difference to students. (S14)
Headteachers also mentioned that they found it challenging to ‘initiate a discussion
about pay’ (P9) with governing body members who did not have an in-depth
understanding of PRP. In one instance, the headteacher had not been awarded a
point after what he thought was a challenging year because of what he felt was a
strict interpretation of a very demanding objective by the panel.
Important headway on the objective had been made according to the headteacher,
however the head had not satisfied the panel that progress was adequate. The
headteacher had subsequently earned two points for their performance the following
year, but the inflexibility of the committee and the pay decision was still on the
headteacher’s mind.
Making headteacher performance management more effective
In the surveys both headteachers and chairs of governors were asked ‘what single
change would most improve the quality of headteacher appraisal in your school?’ An
analysis of responses to this question about improving the quality of headteacher
performance management related to time, training and advice, external advisors,
pay, data and overall rigour. Illustrative quotes from this open-ended question are
given below in Box 3.1 (for chairs of governors) and Box 3.2 (for headteachers).
73
Box 3.1
Chairs of Governors
What single change would most improve the quality of headteacher appraisal in
your school?
Training, guidance and advice
Sight of other 'anonymised' headteacher appraisals
Better training for governors on what an outstanding head should do
Benchmarking
Regular training for newbies and training updates or bulletins for more
experienced govs to remind us what to do/to look out for
Availability of online training
Training for new governors to give them the confidence to question harder
Joint training for headteachers and governors so that 1 single set of advice
can be followed and headteacher can better understand/trust the role of
governors in the process
Electing those members with HR experience onto committee and ensuring
all complete relevant governing body training
Discussion/advice from knowledgeable people in headteacher
performance management
Better understanding of how to measure effective leadership in the
profession
Time – timeline, time for training and data analysis
Less time pressure on the appraisal process
Time line for completion to link to academic year
More time to investigate and reflect on the wider research into successful
leadership in schools
More time for discussion beforehand with the external adviser
Data
Easier to understand centrally produced data so we can focus on using
info to challenge more quickly - currently need spend lots of time getting
clear understanding of RAISEonline before we can start to probe details.
74
External advisor
I think the present procedure works well provided the external adviser is of
the right calibre and the appraisers can be sufficiently objective and
rigorous
Totally independent external advisor - NOT having bonds of
friendship/fellowship
Training for external advisers - the governors train to make sure they
handle it well, but we don't always get the same level of commitment from
the adviser
Rigour
Less straitjacket and pretending that performance appraisal in education is
different from elsewhere
Pay
Revise pay regulations with guidance of pay for system leadership roles
More flexibility with the terms and conditions of pay to reflect what is
actually happening in education today eg NLE, academies, teaching
schools and more government/public recognition of what these
heads/teachers actually take on under the terms of accountability
Removal of the pay aspect as governors can be 'pressurised' into having a
more positive view of the headteacher’s performance in order to make a
pay award
Bench marking pay is difficult, but not impossible
Separating it from pay. Currently, employees are less likely to be frank
and honest if their pay would be adversely affected by a 'confession' that
they could have done better
Move responsibility to others
Provide HMI to assist appraisal of NLE
75
Box 3.2
Headteachers
What single change would most improve the quality of headteacher appraisal
in your school?
Good external advisers - Having a knowledgeable external advisor to work with
More time - Regular conversation with me about my role-my aspirations and
challenges. Just taking an interest in ME!
Recognition - Recognising just how hard I do work! Understanding that even if
my targets were not my targets they would still be achieved.
More reviews - I am the only person monitoring my progress against
objectives, until the end of each year's cycle.
HT Professional development - a link to my development and the resources
ring fenced for it
Pay - being able to pay for performance once reached top of ISR
The governing body raising the subject of pay progression rather than
me having to ask for a pay rise - most unsavoury!
Better data - having benchmarking data available for special schools
Move responsibility to others - being reviewed by someone who has a
background in education or has been a head teacher, not someone who has
no experience or training
Remove governors from the process completely and operate it with
either LA, LLP, external advisors - all those who are involved in
education and have been credible headteachers.
Rigour - create a more 360 degree assessment which focuses not only on
targets set but how the school/head has responded to additional challenges
throughout the year.
Key messages
As noted throughout this report, the use of headteacher performance management
for organisational development and bolstering internal accountability is an integral
aspect of effective headteacher performance management. Less visible were ways
that attributes of organisational development were explicitly tied to individual
personal and professional development. This is an area in which many governing
bodies could focus their development.
76
D. Capacity for effective performance management
Governor expertise
The fourth important aspect for effective headteacher performance management that
emerged from our data analysis concerned capacity and capacity building. Expertise
requires an understanding not only of the school’s data and how to provide challenge
but in terms of reciprocal accountability, how to provide appropriate support for the
challenge. There was evidence of the necessity for considerable high quality
expertise for the headteacher performance management process to be secure and
to be so within the context of high quality governing body processes. The external
advisor has an important role in bringing expertise to the process where it may be
lacking.
The surveys of both heads and chairs sought their views of the governing body’s
expertise for managing the headteacher performance management process. As can
be seen from Figure 3.5 there were again important differences between the two
sets of respondents. There were some differences between primary and secondary
school respondents, with secondaries more likely to ‘strongly agree’ that their
governing body had the necessary expertise (Figure 3.6).
77
Figure 3.5: Governors’ (n=1069) and headteachers’ (n=147) views on governing body expertise
for headteacher performance management
Figure 3.6: headteachers’ views on governing body expertise for headteacher performance
management, showing the difference between primary (n=80) and secondary (n=43) schools
78
In one of the case study schools (S11), increased autonomy through becoming an
academy had impacted on their governing and headteacher performance
management practice. They were determined to improve the workings of the
governing body in all areas. They were committed to and valued headteacher
performance management and to ensuring rigour in the process. They recognise
their increased responsibility as a corporation (an academy). As the chair put it: ‘In
the last 18 months we’ve upped the tempo re how we do things.’
In this case and the case of others, governor vacancies were being carefully filled –
in some cases schools were interviewing prospective governors to ensure any skill
gaps were being filled – and ‘passenger’ governors were being encouraged to
depart.
One of the areas that appeared most challenging was governing body capacity for
working with identifying and supporting the headteacher with individualised personal
and professional development goals. This is a point where the external advisor, who
was typically an experienced educational professional, played an important role.
However, negotiating the balance of accountability and development was a
frequently mentioned challenge, especially for governing bodies in their relationship
with external advisors. As we mentioned earlier, one of the national MATs in the
study (MAT-B) made a clear distinction between the developmental and
accountability functions of performance management as two distinct roles.
Training for governors
The external advisor was also frequently mentioned by governors in interviews and
in the survey as playing a developmental role for the chair and other governors in
terms of putting into place and implementing effective headteacher performance
management. Few external advisors mentioned this capacity-building role explicitly
in interviews.
The survey asked chairs of governors to list the top three topics for training and/or
development that would be of greatest value to them in improving the quality of the
headteacher performance management process. Chairs of governors identified
issues relating to the technical and legal formalities of headteacher appraisal,
understanding data, pay, managing relations with the head, setting and monitoring
objectives, benchmarking and external advice (see Box 3.3).
79
Box 3.3
Top topics for training and/or development that would be of greatest value to
governors in improving the quality of the headteacher performance management
process.
Legislation and regulatory issues
What makes a good and effective appraisal
A single reliable repository of all the structure and regulation around HT
and staff appraisal: we all seem to spend vast amounts of time recreating
wheels and are usually left feeling uncertain we have covered all the
bases
The capability process
Well informed trainers who have up to date knowledge of new legislation
Key paperwork to ensure consistency
A clear, detailed understanding of the role description of a headteacher,
how it works in practice and which elements contribute most and least to
the performance of a good school. An opportunity to spend time observing
how two or three very good headteachers operate, with an opportunity to
discuss their observations with the headteachers concerned, along with an
informed mentor /tutor. The opportunity to shadow the work of an effective
review panel at a school with a proven track record
Understanding data
Familiarity with self-evaluation form (SEF), school improvement partner
(SIP) and RAISEonline.
Keeping abreast of the data analysis systems available for use in school to
monitor attainment and progress.
Understanding the data governors need to see to find out how well the
school is performing throughout the year, not just at the end of a key
stage.
Money
What to do when the cash runs out and there are no further progression
points for the head teacher
Training on the use of the various pay scales and their limitations
Advice about pay expectations
Understanding pay progression
80
The information governors must have to ensure decisions re pay are made
through a transparent process.
Understanding how the school provides value for money
Headteacher relations
How to support and challenge
Working relationship with head
Should the head not meet objectives, and not be awarded increment and
makes an appeal - the potential for breakdown in the working relationship
between head and key govs and how to effectively and legally manage
that
How to deliver frank and constructive comments on poor performance
Benchmarking
How to use benchmarking
How to judge the headteacher against the headteacher standards
Training on the links between headteacher performance and school
performance: what is it that good headteachers do to materially influence
the outcomes schools achieve (leading teachers; setting an example;
The review aimed to (a) synthesise the main ideas, approaches and debates about
performance management and appraisal of senior leaders with relevance to
headteacher performance management in England; and (b) draw implications from
this synthesis for the implementation of effective headteacher performance
management in schools as well as the training and development of those involved in
carrying out headteacher performance management. The review addressed four
questions:
What are the key ideas, approaches and debates about performance
management and appraisal of senior leaders that are of greatest relevance to
headteacher performance management in England?
What are the implications of ideas, approaches and debates for enabling
consistently strong headteacher performance?
What are the implications of ideas, approaches and debates for addressing
underperformance in schools in England?
What are the key points for training and development of governors?
An initial scoping exercise mapped the characteristics of the effective performance
management of senior leaders, identified acknowledged barriers to successful
implementation, and drew out core lessons for leadership and management through
a synthesis of published work from academic and non-academic sources. The
research team scanned bibliographic databases, websites and periodicals for
relevant and high-quality sources produced from 2006 to the present. We used the
following criteria to establish relevance and quality:
Relevance ratings
High Salient to both review questions and of direct relevance to key
stakeholders and/or the process of managing headteacher
performance management in England.
Medium At least moderately relevant to one or both questions and providing
insights for at least one key group of stakeholders involved in
headteacher performance management.
Low Slightly relevant to questions and providing limited insights.
111
Quality ratings
High quantitative study involving a sample of large scope or intensive case-
study that covers a range of settings and stakeholders, systematically
conducted with awareness of applicability and limitations of findings. A
systematic review of existing evidence.
Medium studies of modest scope with findings that apply to clearly defined
settings or conditions. Studies that include a limited range of
stakeholders. Non-systematic reviews.
Low Anecdotal observation or opinion, based on limited scope (one setting,
one individual’s views)
This led to the identification of 106 abstracts of publications deemed relevant on
initial review (Appendix 3). If an abstract was not available, reviewers focused on
parts with high information content (e.g., title, contents list, headings, pictures,
charts).
Preliminary review
Preliminary review entailed completing the items indicated with an asterisk on the
review sheet for each included item. The preliminary review required reviewers to
extract descriptive information (e.g., type of literature, methods used, sample, and
conclusions) as well as make an initial assessment of relevance and quality.
Appraising the literature
We then selected those sources of evidence that scored high on relevance and at
least medium on quality, resulting in 43 publications for inclusion in the synthesis
developed for this report. One reviewer read the full text of each selected item and
completed a review form.
Synthesising the literature
The review team then synthesised findings, using the consolidated appraisal sheets
as a guide. The synthesis involved identifying emerging themes and key messages,
as well as identifying gaps and contradictions in the sources of evidence. The
synthesis was proportionally weighted to give the most weight to sources that
received the most favourable assessments. Fifty-six (43 initially) of the sources
deemed most relevant and of highest quality were used for the current synthesis.
112
A summary of findings is included in Chapter Two of this report. D, Bibliography of
Sources, lists sources considered for review.
Phase IIa: Interviews
Emergent findings around effective practices were then used to explore current
actual practice and barriers to implementation through face-to-face and telephone
interviews (n=13) with those acknowledged as having comprehensive and/or highly
informed views on performance management of senior leaders in a range of sectors
(public, private, not-for-profit). We undertook the interviews in order to get a sense of
what significant people saw as the key issues for performance management of
senior leaders in their contexts. The interviewees provided valuable information on
the different ways in which PM can be approached, and were able to outline clearly
some of the challenges, as well as suggest solutions.26
Phase IIb: Surveys of governing bodies and headteachers
We used the systematic review and interviews to design two online questionnaires,
one for headteachers (147 responses) and the other for governors responsible for
headteacher performance management at their school (1,069 responses). Both
questionnaires were designed for state-maintained schools and academies in
England and covered the processes of headteacher performance management at
the school, the uses of performance information in these processes, and the training
and development needs of the governing body in relation to headteacher appraisal.
Both surveys were reviewed by the advisory group as well as piloted with
practitioners not associated with the study.
The survey of governing bodies launched on 5th March and closed on 28th March.
Notice about the survey was distributed by direct email to National Leaders of
Governance and Coordinators of Governor Services, as well as through the National
Governors Association weekly bulletin, the National Leaders of Education March
newsletter and professional networks of our respective institutions, We received
1,069 responses. A summary of fixed-choice results from the survey appears in
Appendix B.1.
Based on feedback from reviews and the pilot, we decided to delay the survey of
headteachers until the end of the summer term. The survey ran from 16th June to 1st
26 Some respondents were happy to be identified, while others asked that their comments remained
anonymous. In this report we have indicated the sector with which the interviewee was associated (education, other public sector, third sector, private sector) but have avoided direct attribution.
113
August. The response compared to the governors was disappointing with only just
under 147 responding. A summary of fixed-choice results from the survey appears in
Appendix B.2.
Phase III – Case studies
Based on initial analysis of surveys, interviews and the literature, we developed a
sampling frame for identifying 20 case studies of schools and school groups around
the country (Appendix C). The case studies were selected from responses to the
governing body questionnaire and suggestions of interviewees, phone/email contact
with Coordinators of Governors Services as well as following up with other contacts
to elicit nominations. Researchers visited each school or group of schools for one
day, conducting hour-long, semi-structured interviews of the headteacher, the chair
of the governing body and one other governor, and an external advisor. We also
interviewed representatives from the central headquarters of two Multi-Academy
Trusts (MATs), both of which had schools in more than one region of the country.
As part of the fieldwork, the research team developed interview schedules, a case
report template, a case summary template, and outlines for both standalone case
studies and vignettes. Outlines and an illustrative case appear in Appendix C2.b;
similar information for vignettes appears in Appendix C.3b.
Phase IV – Analysis and writing-up
The final phase involved reducing data, generating findings and developing cross-
case as well as cross-modal (e.g., survey x case findings) analyses. Case
researchers prepared individual case summaries for each case study school or
school group. Two researchers then independently analysed the summaries and
developed a cross-case analysis of emerging themes. They then compared their
analyses and developed a composite analysis. Two other researchers analysed the
closed- and open-ended questions for both the headteacher and governing body
surveys. Findings from the case studies and the surveys were integrated in a draft
chapter, and appear as Chapter 3 in this report. At the same time, we continued to
stay alert to scan publications and bibliographic databases for additional literature.
Out of several dozen possibilities, another ten were added to our final list of 56.
Appendix B.1 Survey of governors
Please note: Open-ended responses have been analysed and integrated with the
analysis presented in Chapter 3. There are too many to present here.
Number of respondents: 1069
Section 1: You and your school
1. Please confirm that you are the lead or chair of the head teacher
appraisal committee/group.
Yes, I lead the appraisal process: 92.0% 984
No, I do not lead the appraisal process.: 8.0% 85
1.a. How many years have you led the process of appraisal in your school?
1 year or less: 16.1% 150
2 to 5 years: 51.5% 479
More than 5 years: 32.4% 301
2. What is your role on the governing body?
I am the chair of governors: n/a 808
I lead the head teacher appraisal committee/group: n/a 224
Other (please specify): n/a 138
3. Is your governing body responsible for governing more than one school?
one school: 96.5% 1029
a multi-academy trust: 0.9% 10
a federation: 2.1% 22
Other (please specify): 0.5% 5
3.a. If more than one school, how many schools?
2: 78.6% 22
3: 14.3% 4
4: 3.6% 1
5: 3.6% 1
6+: 0.0% 0
115
4. What type of school best describes your school or group of schools?
Academy: n/a 116
Community: n/a 593
Faith school: n/a 253
Foundation: n/a 84
Free: n/a 5
Independent: n/a 0
4.a. If you answered 'Academy' above, please indicate the type of
academy. Pre-2010: 3.7% 5
Sponsored: 5.9% 8
Converter: 59.3% 80
Other (please specify): 31.1% 42
5. What phase is your school? (If you are replying for a group of
schools, please select the categories most representative of your
group.)
Nursery: n/a 106
Infant: n/a 124
Junior: n/a 119
Primary: n/a 701
First: n/a 11
Middle (deemed primary): n/a 3
Middle (deemed secondary): n/a 5
Upper: n/a 3
Secondary: n/a 159
College/Sixth Form: n/a 25
All-through: n/a 12
Special: n/a 44
6. Please select your region (or regions, if a group).
North East: n/a 57
North West: n/a 337
Yorkshire: n/a 67
East Midlands: n/a 24
West Midlands: n/a 74
East of England: n/a 105
London: n/a 121
South East: n/a 170
116
South West: n/a 115
Section 2: The structure of appraisal
7. How often does your school conduct a formal appraisal of the head
teacher? Never: 0.0% 0
Less often than once a year: 0.0% 0
Once a year: 83.7% 872
More often than once a year: 16.3% 170
8. Does your governing body formally appoint a committee or group to
oversee the head teacher appraisal process?
Yes: 96.1% 1020
No: 2.7% 29
Other (please specify): 1.1% 12
8.a. How many governors are on the committee?
2: 25.0% 243
3: 67.6% 656
4: 6.8% 66
more than 4: 0.6% 6
8.b. Have any members of the committee experience in appraising
staff from their current or previous working lives?
Yes: 92.4% 937
No: 7.6% 77
117
9. Number of years the current process has been in place and length of
head teacher service.
9a. How many years has the appraisal process you led in 2012 been in
place?
1 year or less: 7.0% 74
2 to 5 years: 46.8% 491
6 to 10 years: 32.0% 336
more than 10: 14.2% 149
9.b. How many years has the head teacher been in post at your school?
1 year or less: 12.8% 131
2 to 5 years: 42.6% 436
6 to 10 years: 28.9% 296
more than 10: 15.7% 161
10. Do members of the appraisal committee also make decisions about
head teacher pay?
Yes: 85.8% 881
No: 14.2% 146
10.a. If members of the appraisal committee make decisions about
pay, is this as part of the review process or part of a separate
process of determining pay?
Part of the review process: 62.9% 585
Part of a separate process: 32.7% 304
Other (please specify): 4.4% 41
10b. If you indicated that the processes are separate, please let us
know which statement most accurately describes the involvement of
governors:
The same group of governors are involved in appraisal
and in determining pay but in separate processes.:
24.1%
112
Some members of the appraisal group are involved in
decisions about pay, but the pay process involves other
governors, as well.:
65.6%
305
Other (please specify): 10.3% 48
118
Section 3: Performance and appraisal
11. Does appraisal at your school emphasise assessment of the
head teacher's performance against specific objectives?
Yes: 99.6% 1045
No: 0.4% 4
12. Below is a list of common reasons for head teacher appraisal. Please
indicate the importance of each in your most recent appraisal round.
12.a. Head teacher development and professional growth -- Importance
Very important: 58.1% 611
Important: 33.0% 347
Somewhat important: 6.7% 70
Minor importance: 1.4% 15
Not important: 0.4% 4
N/A: 0.4% 4
12.b. Determining head teacher pay -- Importance
Very important: 15.8% 164
Important: 43.7% 455
Somewhat important: 26.3% 274
Minor importance: 8.8% 92
Not important: 3.2% 33
N/A: 2.2% 23
12.c. Standards of pupil attainment -- Importance
Very important: 88.8% 939
Important: 9.8% 104
Somewhat important: 0.9% 9
Minor importance: 0.3% 3
Not important: 0.1% 1
N/A: 0.1% 1
12.d. Quality of teaching & learning -- Importance
Very important: 91.4% 965
Important: 7.6% 80
Somewhat important: 0.8% 8
Minor importance: 0.2% 2
Not important: 0.0% 0
N/A: 0.1% 1
119
12.e. Performance management of school staff -- Importance
Very important: 54.5% 572
Important: 35.0% 368
Somewhat important: 7.3% 77
Minor importance: 1.9% 20
Not important: 0.4% 4
N/A: 0.9% 9
12.f. School operations & finance -- Importance
Very important: 28.8% 301
Important: 45.6% 477
Somewhat important: 18.8% 197
Minor importance: 4.7% 49
Not important: 1.3% 14
N/A: 0.8% 8
12.g. Accountability (e.g., Ofsted) -- Importance
Very important: 54.1% 566
Important: 35.5% 371
Somewhat important: 8.0% 84
Minor importance: 1.4% 15
Not important: 0.7% 7
N/A: 0.3% 3
12.h. Progress against priorities in the school development plan --
Importance
Very important: 77.6% 820
Important: 19.5% 206
Somewhat important: 2.5% 26
Minor importance: 0.2% 2
Not important: 0.2% 2
N/A: 0.1% 1
12.i. Other -- Importance
Very important: 16.8% 65
Important: 13.1% 51
Somewhat important: 2.3% 9
Minor importance: 1.3% 5
Not important: 0.8% 3
N/A: 65.7% 255
120
13. If you indicated 'other' above, please elaborate.
14. What professional or other standards, if any, do you use to inform
judgments about the head teacher's performance?
Teachers' Standards: n/a 199
National Standards for
Head teachers:
n/a 616
None: n/a 251
Other (please specify): n/a 139
14.a. If you wish, please tell us more about how you use standards to
judge the head teacher's performance.
15. How important to your appraisal of the head teacher's
performance is each of the following sources of information?
15.a. Self-reports generated by the headteacher -- Importance
Very important: 39.1% 409
Important: 47.2% 493
Somewhat important: 11.1% 116
Minor importance: 1.7% 18
Not important: 0.3% 3
N/A: 0.6% 6
15.b. External monitoring reports -- Importance
Very important: 57.5% 595
Important: 32.9% 341
Somewhat important: 5.7% 59
Minor importance: 0.9% 9
Not important: 1.0% 10
N/A: 2.0% 21
15.c. RAISEonline data -- Importance
Very important: 57.0% 599
Important: 31.4% 330
Somewhat important: 7.4% 78
Minor importance: 1.2% 13
Not important: 0.8% 8
N/A: 2.1% 22
15.d. Pupil attainment and progress data -- Importance
121
Very important: 80.1% 848
Important: 17.4% 184
Somewhat important: 2.2% 23
Minor importance: 0.3% 3
Not important: 0.1% 1
N/A: 0.0% 0
15.e. Other pupil data attendance, behaviour -- Importance
Very important: 42.6% 449
Important: 43.2% 455
Somewhat important: 10.3% 108
Minor importance: 2.6% 27
Not important: 1.0% 11
N/A: 0.3% 3
15.f. Teaching quality data -- Importance
Very important: 59.9% 628
Important: 31.7% 332
Somewhat important: 6.2% 65
Minor importance: 1.0% 10
Not important: 0.4% 4
N/A: 0.9% 9
15.g. Data on staff performance objectives -- Importance
Very important: 27.9% 294
Important: 40.6% 427
Somewhat important: 20.8% 219
Minor importance: 6.7% 71
Not important: 1.4% 15
N/A: 2.5% 26
15.h. Staff survey -- Importance
Very important: 5.7% 59
Important: 28.9% 299
Somewhat important: 24.7% 256
Minor importance: 13.1% 136
Not important: 6.3% 65
N/A: 21.3% 221
122
15.i. Financial data -- Importance
Very important: 16.8% 175
Important: 40.5% 423
Somewhat important: 25.7% 268
Minor importance: 10.9% 114
Not important: 3.8% 40
N/A: 2.3% 24
15.j. Ofsted inspection results -- Importance
Very important: 53.3% 559
Important: 33.7% 353
Somewhat important: 8.3% 87
Minor importance: 1.4% 15
Not important: 0.9% 9
N/A: 2.4% 25
15.k. Planning documents -- Importance
Very important: 33.0% 344
Important: 42.1% 438
Somewhat important: 16.4% 171
Minor importance: 5.1% 53
Not important: 1.9% 20
N/A: 1.4% 15
15.l. Parent and/or community survey -- Importance
Very important: 13.1% 136
Important: 36.9% 383
Somewhat important: 26.9% 279
Minor importance: 9.7% 101
Not important: 3.7% 38
N/A: 9.8% 102
16. What other sources of information not listed above are most
important to the head teacher appraisal process?
123
17. Does your head teacher or does the governing body regularly
use any means of putting together high-level school performance
information at a glance (e.g., 'data dashboard')?
Yes: 56.0% 583
No: 44.0% 459
17.a. If yes, please describe.
Section 4: The involvement of others in the process
18. Prior to the formal appraisal, does the head teacher conduct an
appraisal of her or his own performance?
Yes: 83.9% 878
No: 16.1% 168
19. The next few questions ask about the external adviser, a consultant
who may be hired by your school to advise you on the appraisal process.
Does your school use the services of an external adviser?
Yes: 98.3% 1034
No: 1.7% 18
19.a. If your school does not use an external adviser, please skip to
the next question. If you do use an external adviser, tell us how you
found her or him.
Local authority: n/a 427
School improvement partner: n/a 571
National Leader of Education
Education:
n/a 20
National Leader of Governance
Governance:
n/a 7
Governors' associations: n/a 1
Diocese: n/a 14
Local group of schools: n/a 35
Multi-academy trust: n/a 6
Other (please specify): n/a 83
124
19.b. With which of these is your external adviser most closely
associated (i.e., for whom do they currently work or have they worked
most recently)?
Local authority: 59.1% 612
Independent consultant: 31.5% 326
1.7% 18
National Leader of Education
Education:
National Leader of Governance
Governance:
0.2% 2
Governors' associations: 0.1% 1
Diocese: 0.8% 8
Local group of schools: 3.4% 35
Multi-academy trust: 0.3% 3
Other (please specify): 3.0% 31
19.c. Does the head teacher meet with and/or consult the
external adviser about her/his performance and performance
objectives?
Yes: 98.2% 1021
No: 1.8% 19
19.d. Do governors and/or the committee discuss the appraisal process
with the external adviser? Yes: 98.2% 1019
No: 1.8% 19
20. This question asks about seeking information from others about the
performance of the head teacher, either formally or informally. Whose
comments on the performance of the head teacher are sought as part
of the formal appraisal review?
chair of g o v e r n o r s : n/a 759
other governors: n/a 689
teachers: n/a 216
other staff: n/a 113
external adviser: n/a 839
pupils: n/a 94
parents: n/a 137
community members: n/a 43
Other (please specify): n/a 100
125
21. Does the chair of governors discuss meeting performance
objectives with the head teacher outside of the formal process (e.g.,
discussion about meeting targets, review of performance information,
etc.)?
Yes: 83.6% 870
No: 10.1% 105
Don't know: 6.3% 66
21.a. If yes, how frequently do these discussions occur?
Frequently (at least once a month): 30.8% 271
52.0% 458
Occasionally (3 to 6 times a year):
Rarely (1 or 2 times a year): 10.4% 9
2
Other (please specify): 6.8% 6
0
Section 5: Head teacher appraisal at your school
22. Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements.
22.a. The external adviser provides valuable input into the appraisal
process.
Strongly disagree: 1.0% 1
1 Disagree: 2.3% 2
4 Neither agree nor disagree: 3.0% 3
2
Agree: 18.6% 198
Strongly agree: 74.2% 789
Not applicable: 0.9% 1
0 22.b. The members of the governing body understand the process of
appraisal. Strongly disagree: 0.9% 9
Disagree: 2.8% 2
9 Neither agree nor disagree: 9.7% 102
Agree: 50.6% 531
Strongly agree: 36.0% 378
Not applicable: 0.0% 0
126
22.c. Governors readily put themselves forward to serve on the appraisal
committee. Strongly disagree: 2.5% 2
6 Disagree: 11.8% 124
Neither agree nor disagree: 24.0% 253
Agree: 41.1% 432
Strongly agree: 17.8% 187
Not applicable: 2.9% 3
0 22.d. The governing body as a whole rarely discusses the performance of
the head teacher. Strongly disagree: 12.2% 129
Disagree: 32.5% 343
Neither agree nor disagree: 16.2% 171
Agree: 26.4% 279
Strongly agree: 11.8% 124
Not applicable: 0.9% 9
22.e. The appraisal committee challenges the head teacher about
meeting objectives.
Strongly disagree: 1.2% 1
3 Disagree: 1.4% 1
5 Neither agree nor disagree: 3.6% 3
8
Agree: 34.5% 365
Strongly agree: 58.9% 623
Not applicable: 0.4% 4
22.f. The chair of governors and the head teacher have frank discussions
about the head teacher's performance.
Strongly disagree: 1.2% 1
3 Disagree: 3.7% 3
9 Neither agree nor disagree: 10.8% 114
Agree: 33.6% 355
Strongly agree: 49.2% 520
Not applicable: 1.4% 1
5
127
22.g. The process yields clear information about the head teacher's
areas of strength and those aspects in need of improvement.
Strongly disagree: 0.8% 9
Disagree: 3.0% 3
2 Neither agree nor disagree: 6.6% 7
0
Agree: 44.0% 467
Strongly agree: 45.1% 479
Not applicable: 0.5% 5
22.h. The process yields clear information about areas of strength
across the school and those in need of improvement.
Strongly disagree: 0.9% 9
Disagree: 2.2% 2
3 Neither agree nor disagree: 4.5% 4
8
Agree: 37.6% 398
Strongly agree: 54.2% 573
Not applicable: 0.7% 7
22.i. The process is closely related to the process of teacher performance
appraisal at the school.
Strongly disagree: 1.2% 1
3 Disagree: 5.0% 5
3 Neither agree nor disagree: 15.0% 158
Agree: 43.8% 463
Strongly agree: 34.1% 360
Not applicable: 0.9% 9
22.j. Our governing body has the expertise necessary to conduct
head teacher appraisal effectively.
Strongly disagree: 1.0% 1
1 Disagree: 2.8% 3
0 Neither agree nor disagree: 7.7% 8
1
Agree: 39.7% 420
Strongly agree: 48.4% 512
Not applicable: 0.3% 3
128
22.k. The head teacher uses the results from her/his appraisal to
further her/his professional development.
Strongly disagree: 1.0% 1
1 Disagree: 2.5% 2
6 Neither agree nor disagree: 9.1% 9
6
Agree: 41.5% 440
Strongly agree: 45.0% 477
Not applicable: 0.9% 1
0 22.l. It was a challenge to identify an appropriate external adviser.
Strongly disagree: 30.2% 318
Disagree: 41.0% 431
Neither agree nor disagree: 12.9% 136
Agree: 8.7% 9
1 Strongly agree: 4.0% 4
2 Not applicable: 3.2% 3
4 22.m. Those who make up the appraisal committee have recently
undertaken training about the process.
Strongly disagree: 4.5% 4
8 Disagree: 24.4% 258
Neither agree nor disagree: 21.3% 226
Agree: 32.7% 346
Strongly agree: 15.7% 166
Not applicable: 1.4% 1
5 22.n. The appraisal process at our school is fit for purpose.
Strongly disagree: 1.3% 1
4 Disagree: 2.4% 2
5 Neither agree nor disagree: 7.4% 7
9
Agree: 45.7% 485
Strongly agree: 42.5% 451
Not applicable: 0.7% 7
Section 6: Challenges of head teacher appraisal
23. Please list the three most difficult aspects of appraising the head
teacher at your school.
129
24. How have you or could you overcome the most difficult aspect?
25. What single change would most improve the quality of head teacher
appraisal in your school?
Section 7: Guidance used for current approach
26. Please rate the importance to your approach to head teacher
appraisal of the following sources of
26.a. Guidance and documents used within our school -- Importance
Very important: 36.1% 375
Important: 39.7% 413
Somewhat important: 15.0% 156
Minor importance: 4.4% 4
6 Not important: 2.2% 2
3 N/A: 2.6% 2
7 26.b. Guidance and documents used within our group of schools --
Importance
Very important: 5.1% 5
0 Important: 14.9% 147
Somewhat important: 13.7% 135
Minor importance: 11.1% 109
Not important: 8.3% 8
2 N/A: 46.8% 461
26.c. The DfE -- Importance
Very important: 12.9% 132
Important: 35.9% 366
Somewhat important: 28.0% 286
Minor importance: 14.3% 146
Not important: 5.7% 5
8 N/A: 3.1% 3
2
130
26.d. The local authority -- Importance
Very important: 25.0% 257
Important: 34.8% 358
Somewhat important: 22.5% 232
Minor importance: 8.7% 9
0 Not important: 5.1% 5
3 N/A: 3.9% 4
0 26.e. Head teacher unions/professional associations -- Importance
Very important: 3.4% 3
4 Important: 17.7% 179
Somewhat important: 27.6% 279
Minor importance: 24.2% 245
Not important: 16.9% 171
N/A: 10.2% 103
26.f. The National Governors' Association (NGA) -- Importance
Very important: 8.0% 8
2 Important: 25.1% 257
Somewhat important: 27.2% 278
Minor importance: 19.1% 195
Not important: 12.6% 129
N/A: 7.9% 8
1 26.g. Governor(s) with expertise -- Importance
Very important: 52.5% 542
Important: 37.0% 382
Somewhat important: 6.8% 7
0 Minor importance: 1.3% 1
3 Not important: 1.0% 1
0 N/A: 1.5% 1
6 26.h. A National Leader of Education (NLE) -- Importance
Very important: 3.5% 3
5 Important: 10.9% 109
Somewhat important: 17.2% 172
Minor importance: 15.6% 156
Not important: 21.6% 216
N/A: 31.1% 310
131
26.i. A National Leader of Governance (NLG) -- Importance
Very important: 4.2% 4
2 Important: 9.7% 9
6 Somewhat important: 16.9% 167
Minor importance: 16.8% 166
Not important: 21.5% 213
N/A: 30.8% 305
26.j. External adviser -- Importance
Very important: 69.8% 731
Important: 23.5% 246
Somewhat important: 3.7% 3
9 Minor importance: 1.0% 1
0 Not important: 0.7% 7
N/A: 1.3% 1
4 26.k. Contacts with other chairs of governors -- Importance
Very important: 6.9% 7
0 Important: 21.4% 218
Somewhat important: 22.4% 228
Minor importance: 17.3% 176
Not important: 17.6% 179
N/A: 14.4% 147
26.l. Other -- Importance
Very important: 6.8% 3
3 Important: 4.1% 2
0 Somewhat important: 1.2% 6
Minor importance: 2.3% 1
1 Not important: 4.9% 2
4 N/A: 80.7% 394
27. If you indicated 'other' above, please elaborate:
132
Section 8: Your and others' training
28. Have you undertaken training for the appraisal of your head teacher?
Yes: 73.1% 766
No: 26.9% 282
28.a. If yes, when did you take part in training?
This year: 16.7% 128
Within the past three years: 45.7% 351
More than three years ago: 37.6% 289
29. Have other members of your governing body undertaken training for
appraisal of your head teacher?
Yes: 63.8% 661
No: 36.2% 375
29.a. If yes, how recently have they taken part in training?
This year: 16.5% 108
Within the last three years: 63.7% 418
More than three years ago: 19.8% 130
30. If you or other governors have received training, who provided the
training?
Our group of schools/Multi-academy trust: n/a 6
The local authority: n/a 760
The National Governors' Association: n/a 4
1
Other (please specify): n/a 9
3 30.a. If you have received training, how was the training provided?
By accessing online materials: n/a 99
Training courses, seminars (held at the school): n/a 55
Training courses, seminars (held at an external
venue):
n/a 704
Workbooks or other printed materials: n/a 75
Other (please specify): n/a 22
133
31. If you have received in-person support, how was the support
provided?
Mentoring/coaching with another chair: n/a 30
Mentoring/coaching with a National Leader of
Governance:
n/a 8
Mentoring/coaching with a National Leader of
Education:
n/a 8
Mentoring/coaching by the external adviser: n/a 274
Other (please specify): n/a 44
32. What do you think have been the most useful forms of training,
support and/or guidance about head teacher appraisal for your
governing body?
33. What do you think were the most useful areas covered in the
training, support and/or guidance that your governing body received?
34. Please list the top three topics for training and/or
development that would be of greatest value:
35. Have you, the chair or the governing body made any plans to
prepare other governors for service on the appraisal committee in the
future?
Yes: 41.9% 433
No: 58.1% 601
35.a. Please tell us what is being done, if anything, to prepare other
governors for service on the appraisal committee in the future (e.g.,
informal conversations about interest, recruit interested governors to
attend training, etc.).
134
Section 9: Assessing your head teacher appraisal
36. Overall, how would you rate the effectiveness of head teacher
appraisal at your school? Highly effective: 33.0% 348
Effective: 56.8% 600
Neutral: 7.9% 83
Ineffective: 1.3% 14
Highly ineffective: 1.0% 11
36.a. Please briefly explain your answer to the above question.
37. If you have any other comments on the process of head
teacher appraisal or on this survey and our study, please note
these below.
135
Appendix B.2 Survey of Headteachers
Please note: Open-ended responses have been analysed and integrated with the
analysis presented in Chapter 3. There are too many to be presented here.
Number of respondents: 147
Section 1: Assessing your appraisal
1. Overall, how would you rate the effectiveness of head teacher appraisal
at your school?
Highly effective: 14.5% 19
Effective: 51.1% 67
Neutral: 21.4% 28
Ineffective: 9.9% 13
Highly ineffective: 3.1% 4
1.a. Please briefly explain your answer.
Section 2: The structure of appraisal
2. Does your governing body appoint a committee or group to oversee
your appraisal?
Yes: 93.9% 123
No: 4.6% 6
Other (please specify): 1.5% 2
2.a. How many governors are on the committee?
2: 20.0% 22
3: 75.5% 83
4: 3.6% 4
more than 4: 0.9% 1
3. Do members of the appraisal committee also make decisions about
your pay?
Yes: 80.2% 101
No: 19.8% 25
3.a. If YES, is this as part of the review process or part of a separate
process of determining your pay?
136
Part of the review process: 77.4% 82
Part of a separate process: 14.2% 15
Other (please specify): 8.5% 9
3.b. If NO, please let us know which statement most accurately
describes the involvement of governors:
The same group of governors are involved in appraisal
and in determining your pay but in separate
processes.:
16.7%
5
Some members of the appraisal group are involved in
decisions about your pay, but the pay process involves
other governors, as well.:
60.0%
18
Other (please specify): 23.3% 7
Section 3: Setting objectives
4. What professional or other standards, if any, are used in
establishing objectives for your performance?
Teachers' Standards: n/a 19
National Standards for Head Teachers: n/a 67
None: n/a 45
Other (please specify): n/a 18
5. Below is a list of general areas under which specific objectives might
fall. Please indicate the importance of each in terms of the objectives
used for your last or most recent appraisal.
5.a. Your professional development and growth -- Importance
Very important: 21.1% 27
Important: 30.5% 39
Somewhat important: 21.1% 27
Minor importance: 21.9% 28
Not important: 5.5% 7
N/A: 0.0% 0
137
5.b. Pupil attainment/achievement -- Importance
Very important: 82.2% 106
Important: 14.7% 19
Somewhat important: 3.1% 4
Minor importance: 0.0% 0
Not important: 0.0% 0
N/A: 0.0% 0
5.c. Quality of teaching and learning -- Importance
Very important: 70.3% 90
Important: 17.2% 22
Somewhat important: 8.6% 11
Minor importance: 3.1% 4
Not important: 0.0% 0
N/A: 0.8% 1
5.d. Staff Performance management -- Importance
Very important: 27.2% 34
Important: 28.8% 36
Somewhat important: 19.2% 24
Minor importance: 14.4% 18
Not important: 7.2% 9
N/A: 3.2% 4
5.e. School operations and finance -- Importance
Very important: 8.9% 11
Important: 27.6% 34
Somewhat important: 26.8% 33
Minor importance: 18.7% 23
Not important: 13.0% 16
N/A: 4.9% 6
5.f. Partnership with other schools -- Importance
Very important: 5.6% 7
Important: 33.6% 42
Somewhat important: 24.0% 30
Minor importance: 20.8% 26
Not important: 12.8% 16
N/A: 3.2% 4
138
5.g. Accountability (e.g., Ofsted) -- Importance
Very important: 40.3% 50
Important: 28.2% 35
Somewhat important: 13.7% 17
Minor importance: 9.7% 12
Not important: 5.6% 7
N/A: 2.4% 3
5.h. Priorities in the school development plan -- Importance
Very important: 55.5% 71
Important: 27.3% 35
Somewhat important: 8.6% 11
Minor importance: 3.9% 5
Not important: 2.3% 3
N/A: 2.3% 3
5.i. Other -- Importance
Very important: 22.4% 11
Important: 10.2% 5
Somewhat important: 6.1% 3
Minor importance: 0.0% 0
Not important: 4.1% 2
N/A: 57.1% 28
6. If you indicated 'other' above, please elaborate.
7. Who is most involved in setting your objectives?
I am: n/a 86
Chair of the Governing
Body (GB):
n/a 43
Relevant committee of the GB: n/a 77
GB as a whole: n/a 1
External adviser: n/a 87
Other: n/a 6
Other (please specify): n/a 10
8. What are the three most important sources of information used to
determine your objectives? 8.a. One -- Sources of information
8.b. Two -- Sources of information
139
8.c. Three -- Sources of information
9. Do decisions about your pay depend on the meeting of your objectives?
Yes: 89.2% 116
No: 10.8% 14
9.a. Please comment on the links, if any between your performance, the
meeting of objectives and pay (PRP).
10. Does your appraisal result in a development plan to meet your
development needs? Yes: 52.3% 68
No: 47.7% 62
10.a. If YES, who is most involved in creating the development plan?
(Please select all that apply.) I am: 27.1% 19
Chair of the Governing
Body (GB):
7.1% 5
Relevant committee of the GB: 15.7% 11
GB as a whole: 0.0% 0
External adviser: 38.6% 27
Other (please specify): 11.4% 8
10.b. If YES, is the completion of any development activities
reviewed in the next appraisal process?
Yes: 94.8% 55
No: 5.2% 3
11. Please select the statement that best completes the sentence,
'The link between my appraisal and my development plan is ...'
Non-existent: 20.7% 25
Very slight: 15.7% 19
Quite close: 14.0% 17
Very close: 31.4% 38
Very close indeed: 18.2% 22
11.a. If you answered Non-existent or Very slight, please explain how
your development plan is established.
140
Section 4: The involvement of others in the process
12. The next few questions ask about the external adviser, school
improvement partner or consultant who may advise you and the GB
on the appraisal process. Does your school use an external adviser?
Yes: 95.3% 123
No (If no, please go to Question 13.): 4.7% 6
12.a. With which of these is your external adviser most closely
associated (i.e., for whom do they currently work or have they worked
most recently)?
Local authority: 52.0% 64
Independent consultant: 33.3% 41
National Leader of Education: 4.1% 5
National Leader of Governance: 0.0% 0
Governors' associations: 0.0% 0
Diocese: 0.0% 0
Local group of schools: 1.6% 2
Multi-academy trust: 0.0% 0
Other (please specify): 8.9% 11
12.b. Do you meet separately with and/or consult the external adviser
about your performance and objectives?
Yes: 88.8% 111
No: 11.2% 14
12.c. Do governors and/or the committee discuss your appraisal with the
external adviser? Yes: 97.6% 123
No: 2.4% 3
13. Do you talk with the Chair of the GB about your objectives and
progress towards meeting them outside of the formal process (e.g.,
discussion about meeting targets, review of performance information,
etc.)?
Yes: 57.7% 75
No: 42.3% 55
13.a. If YES, how frequently do these discussions occur?
Frequently (at least once a month): 16.7% 12
Occasionally (3 to 6 times a year): 58.3% 42
141
Rarely (1 or 2 times a year): 25.0% 18
14. How frequently do you self-evaluate your performance against your
objectives? At least once a month: 14.3% 18
At least every other month: 27.8% 35
Twice a year: 37.3% 47
Prior to my annual appraisal: 20.6% 26
Section 5: Head teacher appraisal at your school
15. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following
statements. 15.a. The external adviser provides valuable input into the appraisal
process.
Strongly disagree: 3.8% 5
Disagree: 5.3% 7
Neither agree nor disagree: 4.6% 6
Agree: 26.7% 35
Strongly agree: 58.0% 76
Not applicable: 1.5% 2
15.b. The members of the governing body understand the process of
appraisal.
Strongly disagree: 3.1% 4
Disagree: 11.7% 15
Neither agree nor disagree: 12.5% 16
Agree: 39.8% 51
Strongly agree: 32.8% 42
15.c. The governing body as a whole rarely discusses my performance.
Strongly disagree: 6.9% 9
Disagree: 20.0% 26
Neither agree nor disagree: 11.5% 15
Agree: 39.2% 51
Strongly agree: 21.5% 28
Not applicable: 0.8% 1
142
15.d. The appraisal committee challenges me about meeting objectives.
Strongly disagree: 3.8% 5
Disagree: 9.2% 12
Neither agree nor disagree: 10.8% 14
Agree: 30.8% 40
Strongly agree: 43.1% 56
Not applicable: 2.3% 3
15.e. The chair of governors and I have frank discussions about my
performance.
Strongly disagree: 7.8% 10
Disagree: 17.8% 23
Neither agree nor disagree: 17.1% 22
Agree: 28.7% 37
Strongly agree: 28.7% 37
15.f. The process yields clear information about my areas of strength and
development needs.
Strongly disagree: 12.3% 16
Disagree: 16.9% 22
Neither agree nor disagree: 16.2% 21
Agree: 37.7% 49
Strongly agree: 16.9% 22
15.g. The process is closely related to the process of teacher
performance appraisal at the school.
Strongly disagree: 6.9% 9
Disagree: 16.0% 21
Neither agree nor disagree: 11.5% 15
Agree: 38.2% 50
Strongly agree: 27.5% 36
15.h. Our governing body has the expertise necessary to conduct my
appraisal effectively.
Strongly disagree: 11.5% 15
Disagree: 9.9% 13
Neither agree nor disagree: 17.6% 23
Agree: 31.3% 41
Strongly agree: 29.8% 39
143
15.i. The process yields clear information about areas of strength
across the school and those in need of improvement.
Strongly disagree: 9.9% 13
Disagree: 9.9% 13
Neither agree nor disagree: 9.9% 13
Agree: 42.7% 56
Strongly agree: 27.5% 36
15.j. I use the results from my appraisal to further my professional
development.
Strongly disagree: 6.2% 8
Disagree: 18.5% 24
Neither agree nor disagree: 16.2% 21
Agree: 36.9% 48
Strongly agree: 22.3% 29
15.k. My appraisal is closely linked with areas identified in the school
improvement/development plan.
Strongly disagree: 2.3% 3
Disagree: 4.6% 6
Neither agree nor disagree: 4.6% 6
Agree: 32.3% 42
Strongly agree: 55.4% 72
Not applicable: 0.8% 1
15.l. Individuals on the appraisal committee have recently undertaken
training about the process.
Strongly disagree: 15.3% 20
Disagree: 25.2% 33
Neither agree nor disagree: 16.8% 22
Agree: 26.7% 35
Strongly agree: 14.5% 19
Not applicable: 1.5% 2
144
15.m. My appraisal process is fit for purpose.
Strongly disagree: 9.2% 12
Disagree: 16.9% 22
Neither agree nor disagree: 15.4% 20
Agree: 33.1% 43
Strongly agree: 25.4% 33
Section 6: Challenges of head teacher appraisal
16. Please list the three most challenging aspects of the process of your
appraisal at your school.
17. How might you,the Chair of Governors or the Governing Body
overcome the most challenging aspect?
18. What single change would make your appraisal process more
effective?
Section 7: Training for you and the GB
19. Have any members of your governing body undertaken training for
head teacher appraisal?
Yes: 68.2% 88
No: 31.8% 41
19.a. If yes, how recently have they taken part in training for head teacher
appraisal?
This year: 19.0% 16
Within the last three years: 54.8% 46
More than three years ago: 26.2% 22
20. Have you undertaken training for head teacher appraisal?
Yes: 43.8% 56
No: 56.2% 72
145
20.a. If yes, how recently have you taken part in head teacher appraisal
training?
This year: 14.5% 8
Within the last three years: 43.6% 24
More than three years ago: 41.8% 23
21. If you or other governors have received training, who provided the
training? group of schools: n/a 3
local authority: n/a 78
National Governors' Association: n/a 8
Not certain: n/a 5
Other (please specify): n/a 12
22. What do you think have been the most useful topics covered in
training, support and/or guidance
22.a. for you? -- Most useful topics
22.b. for your GB? -- Most useful topics
22.c. for you and the GB together? -- Most useful topics
23. Please list the top three topics for training and/or development that
would be of greatest value to you and your GB.
Section 8: You and your school
24. Is your governing body responsible for governing ...
one school?: 92.2% 119
a multi-academy trust?: 1.6% 2
a federation?: 4.7% 6
Other (please specify): 1.6% 2
25. Are you responsible for leading more than one school?
Yes: 12.6% 16
No: 87.4% 111
146
25.a. If yes, how many schools do you oversee?
2: 66.7% 8
3: 16.7% 2
4: 8.3% 1
5: 8.3% 1
6+: 0.0% 0
26. Length of service for you and your chair.
26.a. How many years have you been in post? (If you are the head of
more than one school, please answer for the school at which you
have served longest.)
1 year or less: 6.3% 8
2 to 5 years: 35.7% 45
6 to 10 years: 31.0% 39
10+ years: 27.0% 34
26.b. How many years has the Chair been in post?
1 year or less: 20.5% 26
2 to 5 years: 43.3% 55
6 to 10 years: 21.3% 27
10+ years: 15.0% 19
27. What type of school best describes your school or group of schools?
Academy: n/a 30
Community: n/a 66
Faith school: n/a 26
Foundation: n/a 10
Free: n/a 0
Independent: n/a 2
27.a. If you answered 'Academy' above, please indicate the type of
academy.
Pre-2010: 0.0% 0
Sponsored: 7.1% 2
Converter: 82.1% 23
Other (please specify): 10.7% 3
147
28. What phase is your school? (If you are replying for a group of
schools, please select the categories most representative of your
group.)
Nursery: n/a 9
Infant: n/a 13
Junior: n/a 7
Primary: n/a 57
First: n/a 4
Middle (deemed primary): n/a 1
Middle (deemed secondary): n/a 2
Upper: n/a 0
Secondary: n/a 38
College/Sixth Form: n/a 5
All-through: n/a 4
Special: n/a 10
29. Please select your region (or regions, if a group).
North East: n/a 5
North West: n/a 20
Yorkshire: n/a 6
East Midlands: n/a 8
West Midlands: n/a 8
East of England: n/a 13
London: n/a 21
South East: n/a 27
South West: n/a 20
Section 9: Further comments
30. If you have any other comments on your appraisal process please
note these below.
148
Appendix C: Case Studies & Vignettes
C-1: Table of all case study sites
In-text
Ref Phase Type Ofsted Region %FSM
Stand-
alone
Case Vignette
MAT-B Mixed MAT Var Midlands & Greater London high y
MAT-A Mixed MAT Var Greater London & SE high
I
S3 Secondary Acad (2012) RI East of England low
P4 Primary Acad (2013) Out North West low y B
S5 Secondary Acad (2011) Good North East low y
Sp6 Special/All-through Acad(2012) Out South West unavb y
PFed7 Primary Federation Var Greater London high y
S8 Secondary Acad (2012) unavb East of England low
L
P9 Primary Community Out South West low
E
S10 Secondary +6 VA RI Greater London high y F
S11 Secondary Acad (2012) Out Greater London high
G
P12 Primary Community Good East of England high y A
S13 Secondary +6 Acad Good East of England low
D
S14 Secondary Community Out Greater London high
K
S15 Secondary +6 Acad (2012) Out South East low y
Sp16 Special/All-through Com/Special Good North West avg
J
At17 All-through Community Good Midlands high
P18 Primary Acad (2012) Out Greater London low y C
P19 Primary VA RI South East low y
P20 Primary Community Good East of England high
H
149
C-2: Outline of case study
Each case study provides an illustration of how headteacher performance management
is carried out in particular settings. The reader needs to know why the case study has
been included as an illustrative, exemplary case of a particular ‘type’ and what might be
learned from considering this case as a whole. Points raised in the case need to be
supported by quotes or anecdotes. To the extent possible, draw in historical references
to help us understand why things are the way they are and/or how things have changed
over time. The outline below will need to be adapted to the nature of the case described.
Cases should be approximately 4-6 pages long.
Title: clear mention of ‘type’.
Introduction: overview of setting, rationale for inclusion and overview of case study
(one paragraph)
Background: Brief description of the setting , its context and HT’s background.
Governing body – experience, training, involvement with the setting,
committee structure and operation. Appraisal panel and how determined,
nature of relationships, external adviser and selection
Performance management cycle: Process of performance appraisal review, how
this sits within larger context of performance management, e.g., arrangements
for monitoring, use of results, link with pay, coherence across org; training and
capacity of govs; evidence for efficacy
Challenges: ‘pinch points’; how have these been addressed, if they have been
addressed; why not been addressed, if not yet addressed
Highlights : what makes this a unique case; what might others learn from this case
150
C-3: Outline of vignettes
A vignette provides a brief (2-4 pages), grounded illustration of an important theme in our
research. The shorter vignette is different from the longer case study because the latter
foregrounds a range of relevant aspects of headteacher performance management within
a particular organisational context (e.g., different governance structures, types of
schools, school and community conditions) while a vignette foregrounds a particular
theme and develops the theme briefly in the context of one of the case settings. With
that in mind, a vignette begins with a brief introduction of the theme and then briefly
sketches the context. It then moves on to elaborate the theme within the context, noting
consistencies, variations and contrasts/conflicts around the theme within the context. The
vignette then concludes with highlights, recasting in abbreviated form key features and
points of learning.
Title—clear mention of theme
Introduction to theme, overview of setting (refer to stand-alone case if one exists)
and overview of vignette (one paragraph)
School background
Current state of theme in this setting—consistencies, variations and
contrasts/conflicts, challenges
Historical development of theme—why things are as they are; how have they
come to be; challenges encountered and how overcome (if overcome)
Highlights – what are the key points (max 10, preferably a handful) in relation to
theme? What can others learn from this vignette?
151
Appendix D: Bibliography of Sources
Adams, M. J. (2011). A Content Analysis of the Congruence between the Evaluation
Criteria of Superintendents and the Iowa Standards for School Leaders. Retrieved from